Column IV

The Great Isaiah Scroll 3:24 to 5:14

Physical characteristics: The darkening on this page is
due to poor photo copying rather than the portion being in poorer
condition
than the last page. This is the first page of the second section
of spliced
leather on which the scroll is written. There are several damaged
places
at the top which obliterate at least four words in the first two
lines
and they must be reconstructed from context and the Masoretic
text with
which this text is more often than not consistent.

1. There are tears or rips in the leather which obscure
some letters. One of these tears has been repaired in the past
and the
"staples" or "sewing" can be seen at the top left. This would
indicate
that the scroll had had long use and was already "old" when it
was "bottled"
and sealed away in the first century. We remember that the Roman
destruction
of the area circa 70 CE is the cut-off date since the community
was destroyed
about that time. ( there are other more serious repairs to the
scroll that
will be noted as they appear. The largest of these will be found
over page
12 of the scroll where the repair covers over 90 percent of
the width
(bottom to top) of the scroll. It is possible that some later
repairs to
seams were done by recent 20th century editors of the scroll
since it was
found and unrolled. Evidence of this is seen when you compare the
seams
on pages 49 and 50. When
viewing both pages it obvious that a recent hand has stitched the
seam
together at the top. Or the only other alternative is that the
decayed
stitches were lost before the next photo was taken.

2. Lacunae: There is a large lacuna at the bottom right
which has obliterated the first one or two words of the last five
lines.
A smaller lacuna is at the bottom left and effects only the final
part
of the last line, but no text is lost.

3. Editor's marks:

There is an editorial mark above the only word on line 21. The mark resembles the large "O" which is found on other pages. See the Introduction for a discussion of these marks and where they are found. There is no apparent reason for the mark and there is no correction nor addition necessary for this word "tsa'aqah" (a cry). The section that ends here does not seem importanat enough to set it off with a distinct mark from other similar paragraphs endings.
There is a dot that appears to be an
ancient editors mark at the end of line 17. I apologize for the
other marks
(asterisk and arrows) which are mine but they may help you find
what is
indicated by them explained below.

The text:

Paragraphs: Chapter 4 begins in the first word on line 4
after the
paragraph space of line 3. The second paragraph space is in line
11. Line
12 following the paragraph space of line 11 begins with the first
word
of Chapter 5 as we have it in the received text and line 22
(which follows
the paragraph space of line 21) is the beginning of verse 5:8 in
the received
text. The word " 'aephah" which is the last word before the
paragraph space
in line 25 is the last word of verse 10 in the received text and
thus line
26 begins with verse 11. The first words there are not readable
as this
is in the lacuna. See the notes below.

Inserted corrections: There are only two corrections
inserted
in this page. We remind you that it is impossible to know if the
correction
is made by a later editor or by the original scribe himself.
Which ever
it is the scroll and the corrections are of great antiquity.
First century
BCE at the latest. An insertion between the lines is found in the
first
word of line three. The scribe left out a tau and the editor
inserted a
yod and tau above the line to complete the spelling of the word.
The Masoretic
has "geburate:k" while Q with the insertion is "gebur(iyti)yk" Or
it could
be a f.pl. ending of waw tau + suf 2ms (othka) The yod and waw
are often
easily confused due to the scribe's hand. It is understood that
the "b"
is pronounced "v" here. The second insertion is in the first word
of the
4th line which is a correction for a misspelling. A heth was left
out of
the word and is written above the line.

Omissions and Variations:

Line 1: The first word is slightly obliterated but it
can
be seen to be "tacheth" (instead of), which follows the last word
of the
last page already noted as being a different form of the verb to
be (hayah)
that is found in the Masoretic. After the third word of this line
there
is a "spatium." This marks the spot, whether purposeful or not,
where "yihyeh"
(imp 3ms of hyh) is found in the Masoretic but is omitted by Q.
In the
second word "ha-boshem" the article is in Q but is not in
Masoretic.

Line 4: The last word is misspelled. It is "and our
apparel"
and should be "ve-simlate:nu" but the scribe reversed two letters
writing
"ve-silmate:nu"

Line 6: The last word on line 6 is
yehudah. This does not appear in the received text. Its
appearance here
in a "branch" prophecy in 4:2, and therefore including all 12
tribes in
the blessings and restoration of Zion bears further looking into
that is
not the scope of this study but is duly noted. See the comments
on this
verse (Isaiah 4:2) in the Isaiah
commentary

Line 9: There is a spatium that marks the break between
verse 4 and 5 toward the end of line 9. The first word of verse 5
(create)
is an imp. verb in Q and a perfect verb in the Masoretic. Q has
"yibare;'
" and the Masoretic has "bar'a"

Line 10: A serious
omission There is an arrow in the paragraph
space in line 11 that marks the spot of a serious omission in
line 10.
After the word "yomam" in line 10 fourteen words are omitted.
This is a
scribal error and it is easy to deduce the source of the error.
From "yomam"
in verse 5 to "yomam" is verse 6 all the words between are left
out. The
scribe was copying the text and his eyes copied to "yomam" in
verse 5 and
when he returned his eves to the text "yomam" a line or two below
and he
began copying the rest of the text following the "yomam" of verse
6. A
further deduction therefore is that this Q text was copied from
another
manuscript by a single scribe and writing alone. He was not in a
group
who wrote as they listened to a reader. Although it is possible
for the
reader to make the same mistake and light on a word below the
last reading
when the scribes are ready. It is less likely that this was the
case and
that this is a case of a copiest error that is consistent with a
single
scribe reading and copying. Notice again that this is a scribal
error and
does not impeach the text which has insubstantial variations from
the Masoretic.

Line 12: chapter 5: verse 1: The cohortive "na' " the
2nd
word of vs 1 in the Masoretic does not appear at all in Q. The
5th word
from the end of that line is the verb "to be." Hayah is written
in Q with
a final aleph which is not ordinary Hebrew form but is another
indication
of Aramaic influence (in Q). In Aramaic appended aleph to open
syllable
words is the rule rather than the exception.

Line 13: Another example to an aleph appended to a verb
is the 5th word on this line (and he built) "va-yibena' ". This
appended
aleph would add a syllable to the word as well and leave it open.
Not in
the Masoretic of course.

Line 15: next to last word: In Q a beth is added to "my
vineyard" instead of the lamed that is in the Masoretic text. Q
has "be-karemiy"
instead of "le-karemiy"

Line 16: 7th word: In Q an ayin is left out of the word
"ve- ya'as" (it made). The root is " 'asah" with a final "he."
The ayin
is not pronounced and the Q scribe elided the ayin but added the
"he" which
is a part of the root as "ve-yasah"

Line 16: 3rd from last word: (vs. 5) Aleph is used in Q
for ayin
in "atah" (now). The next word omits the final "he" found in the
Masoretic.
In the same sentence in the next (17) line the accusative plus
2mpl suf.
"ethkem" has a "he" appended making the word "ethkemah." The
appending
of a he to suf. kem is frequent and I will not notice all the
occurrences
but this one is noted for your observation and recognition of it
when it
appears again. But please see Addition of Aleph
and "He" in the Introductory page for further information on
the Q
scribes grammatical usages of appended aleph and "he.". Midway in
the same
line is " 'asor" for the Masoretic "hase:r." The Q is an imp 1s
verb (I
will turn aside). The 2nd form is a 5th stem infinitive (cause to
turn
aside). And 2 words further on you will see the imperfect of
hayah, "yihyeh"
instead of the "hayah" perfect form in the Masoretic. This is
seen again
in the first word of the next (18) line. (yihyeh imp for hayah
pf).

Line 17: 3rd from last word: Q has "ba'er" (devoured)
without
the preformed prep lamed that is found in the Masoretic text.

Line 19: The scribe has dropped the appended aleph on
kiy
which has been constant to now. Kiy written this way begins verse
10 seen
as the 5th word in the first line above the lacuna. The last word
in the
same line is the numeral one. " 'Achat" is " 'aechod" in Q.

Line 20: 3rd from last word: Q has prep. lamed (not in
the Masoretic text) before "mishpach" (bloodshed). Actually the
word is
in an alliterative relationship with "le-mishpat" and this may
have been
recognized by the scribe who completed the alliteration but in
error.

Line 22: 4th word: "bayit" (house) has prep. beth
preformed
in M but it is omitted in Q. Next to last There is a different and interesting word in this
place in Q. The M text has "ve-hushavtem"
a 6th stem (causative passive) pf 3mpl of "yashav" (to sit or
cause to
be placed) and Q has what is most likely "ve-yisatem" imp 3ms +
suf 3mpl.
(and he lifted them up) I choose sin in place of shin and suggest
the word
is from the root nun-sin-aleph, which can mean be lifted up.
(exaltation
fits the context.) The nun is always elided and aleph is dropped
out as
is the case in several other occurrences of words where aleph or
ayin are
not pronounced and are therefore elided. Other possibilities have
been
suggested including complete misspelling but "nasa" " whose imp
3ms form
is "yisa' " may be the text here.

The 3rd line from the bottom: 4th word: The word in Q
is
fem sing cs "pa'alat" and in M it is masc sing cs. "pa'al" (work
of) The
next to the last word in that line is "hibiytu" (to look at
or regard)
it is a 5th stem (hifiel) causative infinitive or 3mpl and is the
Q equal
to the Masoretic same tense but slightly different form
"yabiytu." They
are identical in meaning.

The lacuna: The missing words in the lacuna when
supplied
from the Masoretic text are entirely consistent with the Q text.